Tobacco Documents Online

1795 1261 i0 15 2O 25 A- It was approved by the company. THE COURT: That's the point. A- That's correct, My Lord. Me BAKER: Q- You were asked to produce a list of all the brands produced by Imperial in the last fifteen (15) years where the level of nicotine increased, do you remember that? A- I believe it was tar. Q- Tar, well, there's an error in the list of undertakings, excuse me. THE COURT: Well, I think it was tar. Me BAKER: Q- I'm reading -- yes, I know. Did you prepare such a document? A- Well, I endeavored to, yes, as quickly as I could. I have it here. Q- Could I see that for a moment please? A- It's my handwritten note. THE COURT: There was a document filed yesterday, tar contents. Me POTTER: Yes, My Lord, those were tar contents at a specific AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Divisioo de Pierre Vflaire & Associ4s kt4e

1796 1262 i0 15 2O 25 point in time. THE COURT: Oh, okay, I'm sorry. Me POTTER: And the question was have there been any brands which have increased in tar at any point over the past fifteen (15) years. THE COURT: I'm sorry, sir. Me BAKER: Q- I'm having grave difficulty reading your handwriting, Mr. Brown, but don't be offended, I can't read anybody else's that I'm involved with in this case. Now, the question is in the last fifteen (15) years, that you were asked to find out the variances up in tar content of all of your brands, correct? A- Maybe it's the same thing. I understand which of our brands went up in tar. Q- Right. A- Right. Q- That's... A- I'm, sorry... Q- I'll put you over here and I'll get in the box. You ask simpler questions than I do. Now, could you tell the Court what are the fruits AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Vitoire & Associ4, L,4e

1263 1797 i0 A- Q- A- 15 0- A- 2O Q- A- 25 of your labor overnight, Mr. Brown, which brands went up in tar? The information I have, brands that went~up in tar, du Maurier Light regular length, nineteen eighty-six (1986). The declared value went from nine (9) milligrams of tar to ten (i0) milligrams of tar. Now, Mr. Brown, in your company's advertising in nineteen eighty-six (1986), in the advertising, now, did you inform the consumer that the tar level of that brand had increased? We did not in the advertising of that brand, no. Thank you, that's what I asked you. Now, were there any other brands? In nineteen eighty-eight (1988), Matinee regular, which was running at nine (9) milligrams of tar. I see on your piece of paper eight (8) to nine (9)? That's -- no, I'm sorry. This is incorrect -- I just was referring to that because I wrote it quickly. This declaration on the package was raised from eight (8) milligrams of tar to nine (9) milligrams of tar because the brand was running at nine (9) if you'll accept that that's an error. Yes. What happens in that case is a tar declaration, My Lord, as it says on the package is average tar per cigarette. AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Vi~aire & Assoclgs

1798 1264 I0 15 2O 25 It's -- it's done in a process where one takes a large sample and averages the tar of the cigarette. If -- very rarely would you ever get a cigarette in a package that is specifically on, this is an average. It's a result of burning tobacco, which is a natural product. In the case of these two (2) brands and they're monitored regularly... THE COURT: Yes, but I didn't get the numbers from Matinee regular.. A- Matinee regular went from eight (8) milligrams of tar to nine (9), and it's because of a change in the crop, when it's measured, it starts running high and there's a system with the federal government, at some point in time, if you can't bring it down and it's running higher, then you must change your declaration and you advise the federal government. Me BAKER: Q- And do you put the change on the packages? A- You do, and in the advertisements. And -- sorry, in the health warnings in magazines, not in the advertisement part. Q- Not in the advertisements? A- That's correct. Q- So, for example, in nineteen eighty-six (1986) when du Maurier Light went up, you didn't in the advertisements, AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Vilaire & Associ4s Lt4e

1799 1265 5 i0 15 2O 25 in any way, put that information in the advertisings, did you? A- We did not. Q- Fine. So we've now talked about du Maurier Light and Matinee regular. A- I'm sorry, I have one more, but it also answers the second question. Q- One (i) more? A- One (i) more brand. Q- Yes, that's what I was getting to. Where is it? A- It's here, du Maurier King Size. Q- I see. A- Okay. Du Maurier King Size also answers the second question that you had. Du Maurier King Size went from eighteen (18) milligrams of tar to nineteen (19) milligrams of tar declared in nineteen seventy-nine (1979). Q- Right. A- In our advertising, we did not. THE COURT: What year, I'm sorry? A- Nineteen eighty -- seventy-nine (1979), My Lord. Me BAKER: Q- Now, looking at your piece of paper, this is -- what brand are we in -- du Maurier King Size? And did you inform the consumer of that change? AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Vilalre & Associ~s L,~e

1800 1266 i0 15 2O 25 A- Correct. Q- And it went up to nineteen (19) milligrams of tar in nineteen seventy-nine (1979) and then it went down to sixteen (16) in nineteen eighty-two (1982), is that correct? A- That's correct. Q- And so you marked the sixteen (16) milligrams... THE COURT: Down how many, how much? Me BAKER: Three (3) My Lord. From nineteen (19) to sixteen (16). Q- So as a matter of... THE COURT: In what year, in eighty-two ('82)? A- Nineteen eighty-two (1982), My Lord. Me BAKER: Q- So it went down three (3) milligrams of tar in nineteen eighty-two (1982), and beyond what you had to put to satisfy the department of health, did you inform the consumer in any way that the tar level had dropped three (3)? A- Only, as the others, through the change in the package which they purchased and the warning at the bottom of the advertisement, only in that manner. Q- Would it be an outrageous proposition to you, Mr. Brown, AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, oivisloo de Pierre Vilaire & Associ4s Lt~e

1801 1267 5 i0 15 20 25 that you didn't want to change the image of the brand so you didn't tell the consumer? I mean three (3) points of -- three (3) milligrams of tar is not insignificant by anybody's terms, is it? A- No, that's a significant change. Q- And then it went down yet again another milligram of tar in nineteen eighty-eight (1988) from sixteen (16) to fifteen (15)? A- Correct. Q- And beyond -- and beyond the usual mention on the cigarette package, and the thing from the Department of Health and Welfare at the bottom, your advertising did not, again, in nineteen eighty-eight (1988) -- is that eighty-eight ('88)? A- Correct. Q- Inform the consumer that another change had taken place yet again? A- Correct. THE COURT: I understood yesterday, from his testimony, and the day before, that they didn't advertise the change in tar content because they couldn't do it because of the agreement with the C.M.T.C. A- Correct. AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Vilaire & Associgs Lt~e

1802 1268 i0 15 2O 25 Me BAKER: Yes, I'm aware of that. Q- File that document, please. Me POTTER: Mr. Brown's personal notes? Me BAKER: Yes. A- You agreed that you would accept that that was an error, may I correct it? Q- Yes, please. THE CLERK: Mr. Brown's personal notes? Me BAKER: Yes. THE CLERK: AG... THE COURT: Fifty (50). A- In the case of the du Maurier changes, when -- when you say we did not advertise it, we did not advertise to the consumer that the tar number had changed but, in fact, as the brand got milder, the -- the image of the brand became stronger than it really was. As we described very early in the testimony and, in fact, we changed the package to make the perception of the brand a little AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Vilaire & Associgs Ltge

1803 1269 i0 15 2O 25 milder. That was, in fact, a result of the tar change. Me BAKER: Q- Why didn't you just sort of say in the copy or in the name that it was a little lighter? A- I can't... Q- I mean the Court... You may not have a ready answer to it but you see the Court's observation, a few moments ago, is quite appropriate. You can't in your advertising, as you say, talk about tar but you certainly have been testifying over the last three (3) days that the descriptors mean things? They do, in general terms. Q- Like regular means higher tar and lighter generally means lower tar. And here you are, you've dropped it four (4) tar points and you don't change the descriptor. You say you changed the package. A- Well, we do not change the descriptor, we changed the package, the declaration of the tar is on the side of the package as prescribed by the government of Canada. People read them. You're asking me the quantity by which I must communicate that to the consumer. It has -- it is communicated. Q- My Lord, it's... THE COURT: No, the thrust of the question is that when you look at AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, D~,io~ ~ ~i~ W~oi,~ & Asso¢igs Lt~e

1270 1804 5 i0 15 2O 25 the du Maurier King Size in seventy-nine ('79), you have a high tar cigarette. When you look at it in eighty-eight ('88), you have a mid range cigarette. A- Correct, My Lord. THE COURT: Medium range. That's the thrust of the question, why -- why Imperial Tobacco has not done any change in his presentation or imagery to make sure that that reduction in tar level is reflected in the imagery or perception of the public or the smokers? A- My Lord, that was the purpose of changing the package of du Maurier, to make it look milder, if you recall. Me BAKER: Q- The packaging is only part of the factor, as we've been hearing it for the last several days, Mr. Brown? A- It is and Mr. Baker... Q- You have packaging, you have copy and you have lifestyle advertising and all those things together give the consumer a kind of perception. And the consumer lets it settle, positions, remember your ITL-3, and then you remember the ITL-3 revised, the three (3) in a row at thirteen point one (13.1), the positions got a little skewered, didn't they? A- They did, that's why we did something about it and that was change the package. AUDIOTRANSCRIPT, Division de Pierre Vilaire 8, Associ~s Lt~e